passed off the stage of action when the two-horned beast came on, just
as Babylon gave place to Persia, which then exercised all the power of
Babylon before it, there would be some plausibility in the claim. But
the word rendered "before" is [Greek: enopion] (_enopion_) which
means, literally, "in the presence of." And so the language, instead of
proving what is claimed, becomes a most positive proof that these beasts
are distinct and cotemporary powers.

The first beast is in existence, having all its symbolic vitality, at
the very time the two-horned beast is exercising power in his presence.
But this could not be, if his dominion had passed into the hands of the
two-horned beast; for a beast in prophecy ceases to exist when his
dominion is taken away. What caused the change in the symbols from the
lion, representing Babylon, to the bear representing Persia? Simply a
transfer of dominion from Babylon to Persia. And so the prophecy
explains the successive passing away of these beasts, by saying that
their lives were prolonged, but their dominion was taken away; that is,
the territory of the kingdom was not blotted from the map, nor the lives
of the people destroyed ed, but there was a transfer of power from one
nationality to another. So the fact that the leopard beast is spoken of
as still an existing power, when the two-horned beast works in his
presence, is proof that he is, at that time, in possession of all the
dominion that was ever necessary to constitute him a symbol in prophecy.

What power then does the two-horned beast exercise? Not the power which
belongs to, and is in the hands of, the leopard beast, surely; but he
exercises, or essays to exercise, in his presence, power of the same
kind and to the same extent. The power which the first beast exercised
was a terrible power of oppression against the people of God. And this
is a further indication of the character which the two-horned beast is